swiss eye care.docx

CHAPTER-I

INTRODUCTION

Healthcare scenario is fast changing all over the world. Hospital is an institute

providing medical treatment for sick or injured people. With the changing era the concept

of hospital is being changed. Hospitals are complex to manage where the highest caliber

and best informed management is required an integral part of a social and medical

organization which provides the population a complete health care, both curtain and

preventive service. The hospital is also a centre for the training of health workers and bio-

social research. In the present decade India has emerged as a leader in information

technology and more great studies in space technology, and there has been a tremendous

progress in the medical field. The improved economy has enabled the development of

new well equipped hospital in many Indian cities, which can provide medical services.

Indian doctors and nurses are highly skilled and possess expertise to carry out best

available medical treatment.

Globalization and privatization have also changed the functioning of the

healthcare system. Today Indian health care industry is business driven and we can see

entry of all sorts of service providers to be a part of this massive multi crore business,

growing at the rate of 13% annually. The privative health network is spreading fast

throughout the country. Economical, political, social, environmental and cultural factor

influence the health care and the delivery of the health care services. Slowly but surely

the health care market is changing from being primarily a seller’s market to buyer’s

market.

India is the hub for quality healthcare services and neighboring countries like

West Bengal, Srilanka and Middle East Countries are flooding to India for medical

treatment only because of quality health care services available in India. India has a good

setup of experienced and qualified medical professionals. Every aspects of treatment in

India is as good as in the developed countries, and India has the potential in several other

aspects such as quality man power clinical and medical training access to latest

technology nature pharmaceutical industry .

1

1.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Coimbatore is a highly industrialized area within a fifteen kms radius of the city

there are about five specialized eye care hospitals many smaller eye clinics and private

practitioners in addition to a large number of multi specialty hospitals which can also

provide eye care service under such highly competitive circumstances it is imperative to

maintain a high level of patient satisfaction in order to maintain the exiting patient base

and to attract more patients in the years to come.

The patients are faced with many problems like difficult diagnosis, high cost of

treatment unnecessary medical practices. In this context it is appropriate to identify the

factors which influence the patient satisfaction towards hospital services and the reason

for the patient preference of one hospital over the other.

1.2 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

Consumer needs can be fulfilled based on their requirements and interest. In

health care industry every hospital has to satisfy the needs and their requirements. The

present scenario is that the consumers are giving more importance for recovery than

comfortable facilities from the highly sophisticated hospitals. In this juncture an attempt

was made to study the role of Swiss eye care hospital to fulfill the needs and wants of the

consumers and the extent the hospitals are concentrating innovative practice towards the

patients.

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

To identify the factors influencing the patients in opting the Swiss eye care

hospital.

To know the patient respondents on the customer care services provided by

the hospital.

To evaluate the level of satisfaction of the respondents in utilizing the Swiss

eye care services.

2

1.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

Area of the study

The area of the study is Coimbatore district.

Period of study

The survey to the patient satisfaction towards service quality in hospitals lasted

for a period of four months (December 2011 – March 2012)

Sampling size

The size of the samples selected for the study is 150 consumers of Coimbatore

city.

Sources of data

The natures of the study involve both primary and secondary data. The primary

data were collected from the patients by using questionnaire. The secondary data were

collected from various journals, magazines and books.

Tools and techniques

The following statistical tools used

Simple percentage analysis

ANOVA

t-test

Correlation

Kendall’s coefficient of concordance

1.5 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

As this study is confirmed to the patients of Coimbatore city, this report is

applicable to Coimbatore city alone.

The study is conducted to know the facilities available to both the Inpatient and

Outpatient.

Sample size has been restricted to 150 samples due to time constraints.

3

REFRENCES

Mehta (2001)1 “The Impact of Employee Involvement on the Effectiveness of Health”Information Technology” Industrial & Labor Relations Vol. 64, Issue5 PP863-888, P5.

Choubey,R.R (2002)2 “A reports on hospital security and maintenance service” Health service management research, Vol. 24, Issue 4, PP163-169, P3.

A.K.Sivakumar (2003)3 ”Improving patient satisfaction in hospital care settings” ,Health service management, Vol.24, Issue4, PP163-169, P7.

Dayan’s (2004)4 “ServiceEthicCompatiblewithProfessionalism”,physician Executive, Vol.38,Issue 6, PP58-60, P3.

RanazehraMassood (2005)5 ”Factors to consider in designing a patient satisfaction survey” Nursing Management, Vol. 18 Issue 7, PP23-27, P5.

Lucy Robert (2006)6 “How Patient Reactions to Hospital Care Attributes Affect the Evaluation of Overall Quality of Care” Health care management, Vol.55, Issue1, PP25-37.

Rakes (2006)7 “Initiative to change ward culture results in better patient care”, Health care management, Vol. 18 Issue 4, PP32-35, P4.

Brown, C (2007)8 “Where are the patients in the quality of health care?” International Journal for Quality in Health Care, Vol .19 Issue 3,P3.

Blum Nava (2009)9 “ST JOHN Eye Hospital”, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 99 Issue 1, PP32-33, P2.

JalanRatan (2009)10 “Predicting Patient Loyalty and Service Quality Relationship”, Applied statistics, Vol. 12, Issue 4, PP45-55, P11.

Edwards Randy (2011)11 “In Struggle to Cut Expenses”, Hospitals Eye the Pharmacy,” Hospitals & Health Networks, Vol. 85 Issue 11, PP28-32, P4.

Sanders Bathany (2011)12 “Service Quality in Health Care Centers”, An Empirical Study, Vol. 4 Issue 4, PP1-15, P15.

Fracasso Mark.R (2011)13 ”Improving access while maintaining quality and satisfaction”, Physician Executive, Vol.37 Issue 6, PP 44-48, P5.

Robbins Shari B. (2011)14 “Developing service quality in mental health services”, International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol .17 Issue 2, P7.

CHAPTER-II

4

PROFILE OF THE STUDY

2.1 PATIENTS SATISFACTION

Patient satisfaction is an outcome that results in the end of the medical care

process in a hospital. It consists of several aspects such as technical, convenience and

cost aspects .A hospital provides number of services to a patient. It is difficult to maintain

quality in each service for every time. Satisfaction is a state felt by the patient who has

experienced a service that has fulfilled our expectations. If the medical care is not

fulfilled to the expectation then the patient is dissatisfied. The expected level of medical

care differed for each patient.

Each patient is unique in nature in his or her expectations (or) priorities differ

from one another. A same service can create satisfaction to a patient and dissatisfaction

for another patient.

2.2 PROFILE OF THE HOSPITAL

a comprehensive eye care treatment and service provider serving patients in Carrollton and DFW. At Swiss Eye Care, our knowledgeable and professional staff provides

Comprehensive eye examinations Treatment of eye diseases/eye injuries Dry/Red eye treatment Eye allergy treatment and relief Cataract surgery co-management Glaucoma diagnosis, treatment and management Retinal disease Macular degeneration Contact lens exams Low vision for the partially sighted Laser surgery consultation Emergency service

Swiss Eye Care provides our patients with the latest in vision care technology in order ensure earlier detection, diagnosis, and treatment of eye diseases and disorders. Retinal Photo-Detailed photos of the back of the eye

Visual Field Testing-Glaucoma and macular degeneration detection Specular Microscope-Accurate evaluation of the cornea

5

External Photo-Accurate recordings of the eye and eye motion

The Swiss Eye Care Boutique offers a wide selection of the latest in high-end designer frames and eyewear, including Prada, Gucci, and Dior. All of our designer frames come with a one year warranty. For budget-consious patients, we also carry a selection of quality affordable eyewear. Eyewear is made onsite in our state-of-the-art laboratory. And single-vision glasses can typically be made in an hour. For patients wanting clear, comfortable vision without having to wear glasses, Swiss Eye Care also carries a variety of contact lenses, guaranteed to suit individual needs. Our knowledgeable staff will help you select the style, fit, and color of eye glasses or sunglasses that will be just right for you.

Swiss group started its first Eye Care Hospital in Trichy in the year 2002. Swiss

eye care hospital was inaugurated in Coimbatore in the year 2009 DR. A. M. Arun,

Chairman & Managing Director.

It has established a vast network in southern part of Indian states like Andhra

Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka, Pondicherry and Tamil Nadu. They provided separate

divisions for each speciality with well equipped operation theatres. They have also made

fine arrangements for the children’s eye care section separately Swiss group has shown

noticeable achievements in the health care services that they can’t afford to compromise

at the quality and services being given to their patients. The skilled and world class

personnel have been hired by our group to give the best treatment for our patient.

Towards its vision to bring quality eye care within the reach of every Indian, the network

has been expanding rapidly. We aim to have 125 hospitals in all by the end of 2011. The

6

Swiss eye care network currently has 600 ophthalmologists and over 7500 care team to

provide individual attention and care to our entire patient.

MISSION

Hospital mission is to provide, maintain and develop quality services and create a

health society. Its vision is to bring health awareness in society and provide services to all

an affordable cost.

VISION

Follow stringent ethical practices.

Provide value for money.

Practice transparency in all our services.

Prioritize quality without compromise.

Upload our tradition of care.

VALUES

To maintain a smooth and standardized work flow processes.

To provide impeccable patient care that exceeds customer satisfaction and

expectation.

To uphold the pride of our organization, stake holders and investors at all times.

FACILITIES AT SWISS

Patient rooms

Swiss eye care hospital has patient rooms ranging from VIP suite to economy

ward so as to cater all groups of society. Each room has centralized oxygen and suction

with 24 hrs emergency nurses call systems.

Emergency room

7

Swiss has 50 bedded emergency units with the following unique facilities.

Emergency medical officers round the clock.

Can take up any medical, surgical emergencies and multimass trauma

cases.

Modern ambulance fitted with ventilator monitors, oxygen cylinders

suction device strained paramedical team, all needed for emergency care.

Operation Theatres

Swiss eye care hospital has 15 main operating theatres. Each theater is designed

according to the International standards and facilitated with

Centralized a/c.

Stainless steel roofing with imported joint less flooring.

Pendants with medical gas outlet, electrical, audio and video outputs.

Live surgery transmission facility.

Laminar a/c Airflow with Hepa filters to reduce infections.

Intensive Care Units

Swiss has well equipped general ICU and Trauma ICU

Their ICU’s are facilitated with

Dialysis back-up.

24 hrs services by doctors and trained nurse.

Relatives viewing facility.

Counseling area.

Separate waiting hall for the relatives.

Hi-tech monitoring equipment with adult and infant ventilators.

Dialysis

Swiss has a four bedded dialysis unit functioning with

o Centralized a/c.

o Special monitors, central suction and medical gas.

o ICU backup.

Blood Bank

8

o 24 hrs service.

o Hi-tech instruments.

o Qualified professionals.

o Multiple tests to ensure pure blood.

Pharmacy

Swiss has 24 hr pharmacy, which caters to the entire need of our patients.

o Managed by qualified pharmacists.

o All type of medicines, disposable items, surgical items like IOL, mesh and

orthopedic implants are available.

ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS

Nursing

Swiss has only B.Sc., or Dip qualified and experienced nurses to look after the

patients and the nurses are allocated on a standard basis to offer the best quality care.

Nurses are further trained to operate the modern equipments both practically and

theoretically.

Dietary Department

Patient Service

Timely service to all in-patients

Diet according to individual patient needs

Patient Counseling

In-patient counseling on discharge

Out-patient counseling

Provision for printed Diet charts

Pediatric nutrition clinic

Electrical Department

2 LT lines

Ups for emergency equipments with a standby unit

Stand by 250 kva generator

Maintenance Department

9

Elevators

VAM (Vapor Absorption a/c Machine) centralized a/c.

Boiler

Laundry

Canteen Facilities

Roof view canteen

Hot beverage

Room services including patient diet and attendee’s diet

From snacks to meals, cold and hot beverages

Security Department

Controls the crowd and maintains the visiting hours

Issues the visitor gate pass

Controls the movement of materials in and out of the hospital

Purchase Department

Procures the entire materials for the hospital

Conducts vendor analysis and performs the comparative quotes for best purchase

Involves in sending any equipment and instrument for servicing

Stores Department

Computerized inventory control

Managed by qualified and experienced professionals

Centralized stores/purchase management

Medical Record Department

Has more than, 1, 00, 00, 000 files in store

Scientific method of patient record arrangement

Computerized search

ICU standard classification

Bio-Medial department

Well experienced professionals

24 hrs service facility

Equipped with emergency backup equipments

10

Well equipped service centre

Front office

Computerized

Enquiry counter

Medical record system

Patient information counter

Out-patient registration and Admission counter

Information Technology

Well designed hospital software system

Fully integrated and networked

Simons imported Epbax telephone system

Public system

Music system

Cable TV

Nurse call / care system

Audio/video communication system

Other services of Swiss Hospital are: Swiss health check up program me’s

Swiss has numerous health packages designed to the needs of our customer both

on an individual basis and for corporate setups.

Executive master health check

Master health check

Total diabetic check

Full heart check

Healthy kid check

Well women check

2.3HOSPITAL SYSTEM AND FUNCTION

11

The following pictures clearly represent the systems and functions that are in

practice in the hospital.

SYSTEM FOR DOCTORS

SYSTEM FOR HOSPITAL

CHAPTER-III

12

Structure of Organization

Social economic condition of patients

Professional ethics

Doctors Professional Exposures

Peer GroupImproving

professional activityFacilities available at Hospital

Governmental Regulations

Medical ethics

Social economic condition of nation

hood

Hospitals Non-medical staff

Medical administration organization Para medical staff

Safety provision in hospital

Medical Staff

Patient

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

This chapter deals with the analysis and interpretation of the study on the topic “A

study on Patient Satisfaction towards Services provided by Swiss eye care Hospital with

Special reference to Coimbatore city” is presented based on a sample of 150 respondents.

The collected data are classified and tabulated. The data are analyzed using the following

statistical tools:

Simple percentage analysis

ANOVA

t-test

Correlation

Kendall’s co-efficient of concordance

SIMPLE PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS

Simple Percentage Analysis is carried out for all the questions, given in the

questionnaire. These analyses describe the classification of the respondents falling under

each category. The percentage analysis is used mainly for standardization and

comparison. Diagrams and charts depicted are in support of the analysis.

Table No. 3.1

13

Age group of the respondents

Age No. of the respondents Percentage

Up to 20 yrs 17 11.3

21 to 30 yrs 38 25.3

31 to 40 yrs 44 29.3

41 to 50 yrs 24 16.0

Above51yrs 27 18.0

Total 150 100Source: Primary Data

From the above table it is clear that out of 150 respondents who were taken for the

study, 11.3%of respondents are in the category of up to 20 years 25.3%of the respondents

are in the category of 21-30 years, 29.3%of respondents are in the category of 31-40

years, 16.0% of the respondents are in the category of 41-50years and 18.0 of the

respondents are in the category of Above 51years.

Majority of the respondents are category of 31-40 years.

TableNo.3.2

Gender of the respondents

Gender No of the respondents Percentage

Male 72 48.0

Female 78 52.0

Total 150 100 Source: Primary Data

From the above table it shows that out of 150 respondents who were taken for the

study, 52.0% of the respondents are female and 48.0%of the respondents are male.

Majority of the respondents are female.

Table No.3.3

14

Marital Status of the respondents

Marital status No. of the respondents Percentage

Married 104 69.3

Unmarried 46 30.7



study, 69.3% of the respondents are Married people and 30.7% of the respondents are

Unmarried.

Majority of the respondents are married.

Table No.3.4

Educational Qualification of the respondents

Educational Qualification No. of the respondents Percentage

School Level 25 16.7

Under Graduate 37 24.7

Post Graduate 66 44.0

No Formal Education 22 14.7



study, 16.7% of the respondents are education up to School level 24.7% of the

respondents are Undergraduates, 44.0% of the respondents are Postgraduates, 14.7 % of

the respondents has No Formal Education.

Majority of the respondents are Postgraduates.

Table No.3.5

15

Occupation of the respondents

Occupation No. of the respondents Percentage

Agriculture 26 17.3

Salaried 31 20.7

Business 46 30.7

Professional 27 18.0

Others 20 13.3



study, 17.3% of the respondents are Agriculture, 20.7% of the respondents are salaried,

30.7% of the respondents are Business people,18.0% of the respondents are Professional,

13.3% of the respondents belongs to Others category such as House wife, Government

employee etc.

Majority of the respondents are Business People.

Table No.3.6

Annual Income of the respondents

Annual Income No. of the respondents Percentage

Up to Rs.100000 64 42.7

Rs.100001 to Rs.200000 68 45.3

AboveRs.200000 18 12.0



study, 42.7% of the respondents are earning Annual income of Up to Rs.100000, 45.3%

of the respondents are earning Annual income of Rs.100001 to Rs.200000, and 12.0% of

the respondents are Annual income of Above Rs.200000.

Majority of the respondents are Annual income of Rs.100001 to Rs.200000.

16

Table No: 3.7

Type of Patient of the respondents

Type of Patient No. of the respondents Percentage

Inpatient 77 51.3

Outpatient 73 48.7



study, 51.3% of the respondents are Inpatient and 48.7%of the respondents are

Outpatient.

Majority of the respondents are Inpatient.

Exhibit: 3.7.1

Type of patient of the respondents

Inpatient Outpatient71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

Types of patient

No.

Of

Res

pond

ents

Table No: 3.8

17

Area of residence of the respondents

Area of the residence No. of the respondents Percentage

Rural 71 47.3

Urban 79 52.7



study, 47.3% of the respondents live in rural area, 52.7% of the respondents live in urban

area.

Majority of the respondents are urban area.

Table No: 3.9

Table showing Factors influenced to select the hospital

Factors No. of the respondents Percentage

Advertisement 16 10.7

Reference by doctors 45 30.0

Friends & Relatives 25 16.7

Quality of treatment 29 19.3

Reputation of hospital 35 23.3



study, 10.7% of the respondents have collected information through advertisement,

30.0% of the respondents have collected information through Reference by doctors,

16.7% of the respondents have collected information through friends and relatives, 19.3%

% of the respondents have collected information through Quality of treatment and 23.3%

of the respondents have collected information through reputation of hospital.

Majority of the respondents are Reference by doctors.

18

Table No: 3.10

Patient perception towards hospital facility

Factors Excellence Good Fair Poor Very Poor Total

InfrastructureNo 99 49 2 0 0 150

% 66.0 32.7 1.3 0 0 100

Space and Seating in the

Lobby

No 20 118 12 0 0 150

% 13.3 78.7 8.0 0 0 100

PharmacyNo 27 72 51 0 0 150

% 18.0 48.0 34.0 0 0 100

Ambulance Service

No 32 90 27 1 0 150

% 21.3 60.0 18.0 .7 0 100

Parking FacilityNo 36 73 38 3 0 150

% 24.0 48.7 25.3 2.0 0 100

Catering FacilityNo 26 86 37 1 0 150

% 17.3 57.3 24.7 .7 0 150

Toilet FacilityNo 15 90 44 1 0 150

% 10.0 60.0 29.3 .7 0 100

Source: Primary Data

From the above table it shows that 66.0% of the respondents say that the

infrastructure facilities provided by the hospital is excellence,78.7% of the respondents

say that the space and seating in the lobby facilities provided by the hospital is

good,48.0% of the respondents say that the Pharmacy facilities provided by the hospital

is good, 60% of the respondents say that Ambulance facilities provided by the hospital is

good,48.7% of the respondents say that the Parking facilities provided by the hospital is

good,57.3% of the respondents say that the Catering facilities provided by the hospital is

good, 60% of the respondents say that the Toilet facilities provided by the hospital is

good.

19

Exhibit: 3.10.2

The patient perception towards hospital facility

Infrastr

ucture

Space

and Se

ating in

the L

obby

Pharmacy

Ambulance

Servi

ce

Parking F

acility

Caterin

g Faci

lity

Toilet

Facili

ty0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

ExcellenceGoodFairPoorVery Poor

Hospital Facility

No

of R

espo

nden

ts

Table No: 3.11

20

The opinion about the cost of treatment (inpatient)

Factors Very High High Reasonable Low Very

Low Total

Consultation FeesNo 1 13 97 35 4 150

% .7 8.7 64.7 23.3 2.7 100

Investigation charges like X-

ray / Scan / Ultrasound / Lab

charges etc.,

No 10 28 77 32 3 150

% 6.7 18.7 51.3 21.3 2.0 100

Amount charged for food and

beverages supplied to inpatients

No 4 9 38 25 4 80

% 5 11.25 47.5 31.25 5 100

Room rent & other service charges

No 1 3 43 27 6 80

% 1.25 3.75 53.75 33.75 7.5 100

Cost of medicine sold by the medical shop in the campus

No 4 29 70 40 7 150

% 2.7 19.3 46.7 26.7 4.7 100

Cost of the item sold in the canteen

No 0 13 71 38 28 150

% 0 8.7 47.3 25.3 18.7 100


From the table it shows that 64.7% of the respondents say that the consultation

fees charged by the hospital is reasonable, 51.3% of the respondents say that the

Investigation charged by the hospital is reasonable, 47.5% of the respondents say that the

Amount charged for food facilities in the hospital is reasonable, 53.75 of the respondents

say that the Room rent charges and other services charges by the hospital is reasonable,

46.7% of the respondents say that the Medicine charged by the medical shop in a hospital

is reasonable, 47.3% of the respondents say that the cost of the item sold in the canteen in

a hospital is reasonable.

21

Exhibit: 3.11.3

The opinion about the cost of treatment (Inpatient)

Consultation Fe

es

Investiga

tion charg

es like

X-ray /

Scan

/ Ultr

asound / L

ab ch

arges

etc.,

Amount charg

ed fo

r food an

d bevera

ges s

upplied to

inpati

ents

Room rent &

other ser

vice c

harges

Cost of m

edicin

e sold by t

he med

ical sh

op in th

e cam

pus

Cost of th

e item

sold in

the c

antee

n0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Very LowLowReasonableVery High

Cost of treatment

No

of R

espo

nden

ts

Table No: 3.12

22

The opinion about the cost of treatment (outpatient)

Factors Very High High Reasonabl

e Low Very Low Total

Consultation FeesNo 1 13 97 35 4 150

% .7 8.7 64.7 23.3 2.7 100

Investigation charges like X-

ray / Scan / Ultrasound / Lab

charges etc.,

No 10 28 77 32 3 150

% 6.7 18.7 51.3 21.3 2.0 100

Cost of medicine sold by the medical shop in the campus

No 4 29 70 40 7 150

% 2.7 19.3 46.7 26.7 4.7 100

Cost of the item sold in the canteen

No 0 13 71 38 28 150

% 0 8.7 47.3 25.3 18.7 100


From the above table it shows that 64.7% of the respondents says that the

consultation fees charged by the hospital is reasonable, 51.3% of the respondents says

that the Investigation charged by the hospital is reasonable, 46.7% of the respondents

says that the Medicine charged by the medical shop in a hospital is reasonable, 47.3% of

the respondents says that the cost of the item sold in the canteen in a hospital is

reasonable.

Exhibit: 3.12.4

23

The opinion about the cost of treatment (Outpatient)

Consulta

tion Fees

Investigati

on charg

es like

X-ray /

Scan

/ Ultra

sound / L

ab ch

arges

etc.,

Cost of m

edicin

e sold by t

he med

ical sh

op in th

e cam

pus

Cost of th

e item

sold in

the c

antee

n0

20406080

100120140160

Very LowLowReasonableHighVery High

cost of treatment

No

of r

espo

nden

ts

Table No: 3.13

24

The satisfaction level of regarding of general services

Factors Excellence Good Fair Poor Very

Poor Total

Feedback to employee

No 100 45 5 0 0 150

% 66.7 30.0 3.3 0 0 100

Personal touch with customer

No 26 102 22 0 0 150

% 17.3 68.0 14.7 0 0 100

Prevention of error

No 45 56 49 0 0 150

% 30.0 37.3 32.7 0 0 100

Safety provision in the hospital

No 24 93 27 6 0 150

% 16.0 62.0 18.0 4.0 0 100

Medical record department

No 21 73 53 2 1 150

% 14.0 48.7 35.3 1.3 .7 100


From the above table it shows that 30% of the respondents says that services of

employees in the hospital is excellence, 68% of the respondents says that personal touch

with patients in the hospital is good, 37.3% of the respondents says that prevention of

error in the hospital is good, 62.0% of the respondents says that safety provision in the

hospital is good, 48.7% of the respondents says that medical record department in the

hospital is good.

25

Exhibit: 3.13.5

The satisfaction level of regarding of general services

Feedback

to em

ployee

Personal t

ouch with

custo

mer

Preven

tion of erro

r

Safety

provis

ion in th

e hosp

ital

Medica

l record

depart

ment

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Very PoorPoorFairGoodExcellence

General Services

No.

of R

espo

nden

ts

Table No.3.14

26

The Recommend this hospital to others

Recommend No. of the respondents Percentage

Yes 142 94.7

No 8 5.3

Total 150 100.0



study, 94.7% of the respondents will recommend the hospital to others and 5.3% of the

respondents will not recommend the hospital to others.

Majority of the respondents recommend the hospital to others.

ANOVA

27

ANOVA technique is used multiple sample cases are involved. ANOVA is to

test for difference among the means of the populations by examining the amount of

variation within each of these samples, relatives to variation between the samples.

Table Showing Relationship between Age and Patient perception towards hospital

Facility

Hypothesis: The patient perception towards hospital facility has no significant

difference between the age groups”

Table No: 3.15

Group statistics- Age and Patient perception

Patients Perception Towards Hospital Facility Score

Mean S.D No

Age

Up to 20 yrs 28.59 2.09 17

21 to 30 yrs 28.03 1.92 38

31 to 40 yrs 28.34 2.03 44

41 to 50 yrs 28.08 1.74 24

51 yrs & Above 28.15 1.81 27

Total 28.21 1.91 150 Source: Computed

From the above table it is inferred that the respondents belong to the age group of

up to 20 years have a higher mean of 28.59 with patient perception towards hospital

facility.

Table No: 3.15(a)

28

ANOVA for patient perception towards hospital facility score and age

Sum of squares DF Mean square F Sig

Between Groups 4.955 4 1.239 .33

2 2.434

Within Groups 540.218 145 3.726

Total 545.173149

One way ANOVA was applied to find whether the mean patients perception

towards hospital facility score vary significantly among age groups. The ANOVA result

shows that the calculated F-ratio value is 0.332 which is less than the table value of 2.434

at 5% level of significance. Since the table value is higher than the calculated value it is

inferred that the patients perception towards hospital facility has no significant difference

between the age groups. Hence the hypothesis is accepted.

29

Table Showing Relationship between Educational qualification and patient

perception towards hospital Facility


difference between the education qualification groups”

Table No: 3.16

Group statistics - Educational qualification and Patient perception

Patients perception towards hospital Facility score

Mean S.D No

Educational Qualification

School level 27.96 2.11 25

UG 28.19 1.87 37

PG 28.21 1.98 66

No formal education 28.55 1.60 22

Total 28.21 1.91 150Source: Computed

From the above table it is inferred that the respondents have No formal education

has a higher mean of 28.55 with patient perception towards hospital facility.

30

Table No: 3.16(a)

ANOVA for Patients Perception towards Hospital Facility Score and Age



4 2.667

Within Groups 541.121 146 3.706

Total 545.173 149


towards hospital facility score varies significantly among education qualification groups.

The ANOVA result shows that the calculated F-ratio value is 0.364 which is less than the

table value of 2.667 at 5% level of significance. Since the table value is higher than the

calculated value it is inferred that the patients perception towards hospital facility has no

significant difference between the educations qualification groups. Hence the hypothesis

is accepted.

31

Table Showing Relationship between Occupations of patient perception towards

hospital Facility


difference between the occupation groups”

Table No: 3.17

Group statistics - Occupation and Patient perception

Patients perception towards hospital facility score

Mean S.D No

Occupation

Agriculture 28.35 1.90 26

Salaried 27.87 1.94 31

Business 28.39 1.90 46

Professional 28.07 2.09 27

Others 28.35 1.76 20


From the above table it is inferred that the respondents belong to the Occupation

of business persons have a higher mean of 28.39 with patient perception towards hospital

facility.

32

Table No: 3.17(a)

ANOVA for Patients Perception towards Hospital Facility Score and Occupation



4 2.434

Within Groups 538.727 145 3.715

Total 545.173 149


towards hospital facility score vary significantly among occupation groups. The ANOVA

result shows that the calculated F-ratio value is 0.434 which is less than the table value of

2.434 at 5% level of significance. Since the table value is higher than the calculated value

it is inferred that the patients perception towards hospital facility has no significant

difference between the occupation groups. Hence the hypothesis is accepted.

33

Table Showing Relationship between Annual Income and patient perception

towards Hospital Facility


difference between the annual income groups”

Table No: 3.18

Group statistics - Annual income and Patient Perception


Mean S.D No

Annual Income

Up to Rs.100000 28.16 1.95 64

Rs.100001 to Rs.200000 28.18 1.88 68

AboveRs.200000 28.56 1.98 18


From the above table it is inferred that the respondents belong to the annual

income of above Rs.200000 have a higher mean of 28.56 with patient perception towards

hospital facility.

34

Table No: 3.18(a)

ANOVA for Patients Perception towards Hospital Facility Score and Annual

Income

Sum of squares D Mean square F Sig


6 3.058

Within Groups 542.764 147 3.692

Total 545.173 149

One way ANOVA was applied to find whether the mean patient perception

towards hospital facility score vary significantly among annual income groups. The

ANOVA result shows that the calculated F-ratio value is 0.326which is less than the table

value of 3.058 at 5% level of significance. Since the table value is higher than the

calculated value it is inferred that the patient perception towards hospital facility has no

significant difference between the annual income groups. Hence the hypothesis is

accepted.

35

Table Showing Relationship between Age and Level of Satisfaction regarding the

Hospital personnel

Hypothesis: The Level of satisfaction regarding the hospital personnel has no significant

difference between the age groups”

Table No: 3.19

Group statistics - Age and Level of satisfaction

Satisfaction level regarding the hospital persons score

Mean S.D No

Age

Up to 20 yrs 33.18 2.21 17

21 to 30 yrs 32.89 2.68 38

31 to 40 yrs 32.77 2.48 44

41 to 50 yrs 31.79 3.04 24

Above51yrs 32.37 3.09 27


From the above table it is inferred that the respondents belong to the age group

between 21-30 years have a higher mean of 32.89 with level of satisfaction regarding the

hospital personnel.

36

Table No: 3.19(a)

ANOVA for Satisfaction Level Regarding the Hospital Persons Score and Age


Between Groups 27.309 4 6.827 .92

7 2.434

Within Groups 1068.031 145 7.366

Total 1095.340 149

One way ANOVA was applied to find whether the mean levels of satisfaction

regarding the hospital personnel score vary significantly among age groups. The ANOVA

result shows that the calculated F-ratio value is 0.927which is less than the table value of

2.434 at 5% level of significance. Since the table value is higher than the calculated value

it is inferred that the level of satisfaction regarding the hospital personnel has no

significant difference between the age groups. Hence the hypothesis is accepted.

37

Table Showing Relationship between Educational Qualification and Level of

Satisfaction regarding the Hospital personnel


difference between the education qualification groups”

Table No: 3.20

Group statistics -Educational Qualification and Level of satisfaction


Mean S.D No



UG 32.43 2.83 37

PG 32.47 2.74 66




has a higher mean of 33.27 with level of satisfaction regarding the hospital personnel.

38

Table No: 3.20(a)

ANOVA for satisfaction Level regarding the Hospital Persons Score and



Between Groups 12.416 3 4.139 .55

8 2.667

Within Groups 1082.924 146 7.417

Total 1095.340 149


regarding the hospital personnel score vary significantly among education qualification

groups. The ANOVA result shows that the calculated F-ratio value is 0.558which is less

than the table value of 2.667 at 5% level of significance. Since the table value is higher

than the calculated value it is inferred that the level of satisfaction regarding the hospital

personnel has no significant difference between the education qualification groups.

Hence the hypothesis is accepted.

39

Table Showing Relationship between Occupation and Level of Satisfaction

regarding the hospital personnel

Hypothesis: The Level of satisfaction regarding the hospital has no significant

difference between the personnel occupation group.

Table No: 3.21

Group statistics-Occupation and Level of satisfaction


Mean S.D No.

Occupation


Salaried 32.42 3.00 31

Business 32.70 2.59 46


Others 33.50 1.99 20



of Business have a higher mean of 32.70 with level of satisfaction regarding the hospital

personnel.

40

Table No: 3.21(a)

ANOVA for Satisfaction level regarding the Hospital persons

Score and Occupation


Between Groups 21.419 4 5.355 .72

3 2.434

Within Groups 1073.921 145 7.406

Total 1095.340 149


regarding the hospital personnel score vary significantly among occupation groups. The

ANOVA result shows that the calculated F-ratio value is0.723 which is less than the table

value2.434 of at 5% level of significance. Since the table value is higher than the

calculated value it is inferred that the level of satisfaction regarding the hospital

personnel has no significant difference between the occupation groups. Hence the

hypothesis is accepted.

41

Table Showing Relationship between Annual income and Level of Satisfaction

regarding hospital personnel


difference between the annual income groups.

Table No: 3.22

Group statistics –Annual income and Level of satisfaction


Mean S.D No

Annual Income

Up toRs.100000 32.63 3.02 64

Rs.100001 toRs.200000 32.76 2.49 68

Aboves.200000 32.06 2.41 18


From the above table it is inferred that the respondents belong to the Annual

income of Rs.100001toRs.200000 have a higher mean of 32.76 with level of satisfaction

regarding the hospital personnel.

42

Table No. 3.22(a)

ANOVA for Satisfaction Level regarding the Hospital Persons Score and Annual

Income



4 3.058

Within Groups 1088.180 147 7.403

Total 1095.340 149


regarding the hospital personnel score vary significantly among annual income groups.

The ANOVA result shows that the calculated F-ratio value is0.484 which is less than the

table value 3.058of at 5% level of significance. Since the table value is higher than the

calculated value it is inferred that the level of satisfaction regarding the hospital

personnel has no significant difference between the annual income groups. Hence the


43

Table Showing Relationship between Age and opinion about cost of treatment

Hypothesis: The opinions about cost of treatment has no significant difference between

the age groups

Table No: 3.23

Group statistics-Age and opinion about cost of treatment

Opinion about cost of treatment score

Mean S.D No

Age

Up to 20 yrs 14.12 2.57 17

21 to 30 yrs 14.21 2.96 38

31 to 40 yrs 13.84 3.42 44

41 to 50 yrs 13.54 3.79 24

Above51yrs 14.81 3.42 27


From the above table it is inferred that the respondents belong to the Age group of

above 51 years have a higher mean of 14.81 with opinion about cost of treatment.

44

Table No: 3.23(a)

ANOVA for Opinion about Cost of Treatment Score and Age


Between Groups 24.694 4 6.174 .57

1 2.434

Within Groups 1567.999 145 10.814

Total 1592.693 149

One way ANOVA was applied to find whether the mean level of opinion about

cost of treatment score vary significantly among age groups. The ANOVA result shows

that the calculated F-ratio value is0.571 which is less than the table value 3.058 of at 5%

level of significance. Since the table value is higher than the calculated value it is inferred

that the opinion about cost of treatment has no significant difference between the age

groups. Hence the hypothesis is accepted.

45

Table Showing Relationship between Educational qualification and opinion about

cost of treatment

Hypothesis: The opinion about cost of treatment has significant with the educational

qualification groups.

Table No: 3.24

Group statistics-Educational qualification and opinion about cost of treatment


Mean S.D No



UG 14.54 3.13 37

PG 13.52 2.99 66



46

From the above table it is inferred that the respondents have a School level has a

higher mean of 15.60 with opinion about cost of treatment.

Table No: 3.24(a)

ANOVA for Opinion about Cost of Treatment Score and Educational Qualification


Between Groups 97.928 3 32.643 3.188 2.667

Within Groups 1494.765 146 10.238

Total 1592.693 149


cost of treatment score vary significantly among educational qualification groups. The

ANOVA result shows that the calculated F-ratio value is 3.188 which is higher than the

table value 2.667of at 5% level of significance. Since the calculated value is higher than

the table value it is inferred that the opinion about cost of treatment has significant with

the educational qualification groups. Hence the hypothesis is rejected.

47

Table Showing Relationship between Occupation and opinion about cost of

treatment

Hypothesis: The opinion about cost of treatment has no significant difference between

the Occupation groups.

Table No: 3.25

Group statistics –Occupation and opinion about cost of treatment


Mean S.D No.

Occupation


Salaried 14.55 3.74 31

Business 13.78 2.90 46


Others 15.05 1.99 20

Total 14.09 3.27 150

48

Source: Computed

From the above table it is inferred that the respondents belong to the occupation

of other category of have a higher mean of 15.05 with opinion about cost of treatment.

Table No: 3.25(a)

ANOVA for Opinion about Cost of Treatment Score and Occupation


Between Groups 37.067 4 9.267 .86

4 2.434

Within Groups 1555.626 145 10.728

Total 1592.693 149


cost of treatment score vary significantly among Occupation groups. The ANOVA result

shows that the calculated F-ratio value is0.864which is lesser than the table value 2.434

of at 5% level of significance. Since the table value is higher than the calculated value it

49

is inferred that the opinion about cost of treatment has no significant difference between

the Occupation groups. Hence the hypothesis is accepted.

Table Showing Relationship between Annual income and opinion about cost of

treatment


the annual income groups.

Table No: 3.26

Group statistics –Annual income and opinion about cost of treatment


Mean S.D No

Annual Income

Up to Rs.100000 14.20 2.98 64

Rs.100001 to Rs.200000 14.15 3.58 68

50

AboveRs.200000 13.50 3.13 18



income of Rs.100000 have a higher mean of 14.20 with opinion about cost of treatment.

Table No: 3.26(a)

ANOVA for Opinion about Cost of Treatment Score and Annual Income



9 3.058

Within Groups 1585.389 147 10.785

Total 1592.693 149


cost of treatment score vary significantly among Annual income groups. The ANOVA

51

result shows that the calculated F-ratio value is0.339which is lesser than the table value

3.058 of at 5% level of significance. Since the table value is higher than the calculated

value it is inferred that the opinion about cost of treatment has no significant difference

between the annual income groups. Hence the hypothesis is accepted.

Table Showing Relationship between Age and Satisfaction level of general services

Hypothesis: The satisfaction level of general services has no significant difference

between the age group.

Table No: 3.27

Group statistics - Age and Satisfaction level of general services

Satisfaction level of general services score

Mean S.D No.

Age Up to 20 yrs 20.35 1.84 17

21 to 30 yrs 19.97 1.91 38

52

31 to 40 yrs 20.75 1.73 44

41 to 50 yrs 19.79 2.19 24

Above51yrs 20.30 1.90 27


From the above table it is inferred that the respondents belong to the Age group

between 31-40 years have a higher mean of 20.75 with satisfaction level of general

services.

Table No: 3.27(a)

ANOVA for Satisfaction Level of General Services Score and Age


Between Groups 19.099 4 4.775 1.330 2.434

Within Groups 520.694 145 3.591

Total 539.793 149

53

One way ANOVA was applied to find whether the mean level of satisfaction

towards of services score vary significantly among age groups. The ANOVA result

shows that the calculated F-ratio value is1.330which is lesser than the table value 2.434

of at 5% level of significance. Since the table value is higher than the calculated value it

is inferred that the satisfaction level of general services has no significant difference

between the age groups. Hence the hypothesis is accepted.

Table Showing Relationship between Educational qualification and Satisfaction

level of general services


between the educational qualification groups.

Table No: 3.28

Group statistics - Educational qualification and Satisfaction level of general services

54

Satisfaction Level Of General Services Score

Mean S.D No



UG 20.30 1.63 37

PG 20.08 2.03 66




has a higher mean level of 20.82 with satisfaction level of general services.

Table No: 3.28(a)

ANOVA for Satisfaction Level of General Services Score and Educational

Qualification



7 2.667

Within Groups 530.664 146 3.635

55

Total 539.793 149


towards general services score vary significantly among educational qualification groups.

The ANOVA result shows that the calculated F-ratio value is 0.837which is lesser than

the table value 2.667 of at 5% level of significance. Since the table value is higher than

the calculated value it is inferred that the satisfaction level of general services has no

significant difference between the educational qualification groups. Hence the hypothesis

is accepted.

Table Showing Relationship between Occupation and Satisfaction level of general

services


between the Occupation groups.

Table No: 3.29

Group statistics - Occupation and Satisfaction level of general services

56


Mean S.D No

Occupation


Salaried 20.71 1.49 31

Business 20.15 2.11 46


Others 20.50 1.76 20



of salaried persons have a higher mean of 20.71 with satisfaction level of general

services.

Table No: 3.29(a)

ANOVA for Satisfaction Level of General Services Score and occupation


Between Groups 18.125 4 4.531 1.260 2.434

Within Groups 521.668 145 3.598

57

Total 539.793 149


towards general services score vary significantly among educational qualification groups.

The ANOVA result shows that the calculated F-ratio value is1.260 which is lesser than

the table value 2.434 of at 5% level of significance. Since the table value is higher than

the calculated value it is inferred that the satisfaction level of general services has no

significant difference between the Occupation groups. Hence the hypothesis is accepted.

Table Showing Relationship between Annual income and Satisfaction level of

general services


between the annual income groups.

Table No: 3.30

58

Group statistics - Annual Income and Satisfaction level of general services


Mean S.D No.

Annual Income

Up to Rs.100000 20.31 1.79 64

Rs.100001 to Rs.200000 20.49 1.97 68

AboveRs.200000 19.33 1.88 18



income of Rs.100001to Rs.200000 have a higher mean of 20.49 with satisfaction level of

general services.

.

Table No: 3.30(a)

ANOVA for Satisfaction Level of General Services Score and Annual Income


Between Groups 19.058 2 9.529 2.690 3.058

59

Within Groups 520.735 147 Gr3.542

Total 539.793 149


towards general services score vary significantly among Annual income groups. The

ANOVA result shows that the calculated F-ratio value is2.690 which is lesser than the

table value 3.058 of at 5% level of significance. Since the table value is higher than the

calculated value it is inferred that the satisfaction level of general services has no

significant difference between the annual income groups. Hence the hypothesis is

accepted.

t-test

T-test is applied to find whether the mean satisfaction score vary significantly between

two variables. It should be calculated the only two variables.

Table Showing Relationship between Gender level and patient perception towards

hospital Facility

60

Hypothesis: The Patient perception towards hospital facility has no significant

difference between the Male and female.

TABLE NO: 3.31

Group Statistics -Gender and patient perception


Mean S.D No.

Gender

Male 28.25 2.01 72

Female 28.18 1.84 78


From the above table it is inferred that the respondents belong to the male

category has a higher mean of 28.25 towards patient perception to hospital facility.

Table No: 3.31(a)

t-test for Equality of Means

T DF SIG

.225 148 1.976

The T-test was applied to find whether the mean satisfaction score vary

significantly between Male and female. The calculated t-test value is 0.225 which is

lesser than the table value of 1.976at 5%level of significance. Since the table value is

higher than the table value it is inferred that the mean patient perception towards hospital

facility has no significant difference between the Male and female. Hence the hypothesis

is accepted.

Table Showing Relationship between Marital status and patient perception towards

hospital Facility

Hypothesis: The Patient perception towards hospital facility has no significant

difference between the married and unmarried.

Table No: 3.32

61

Group Statistics -Marital Status and patient perception

Patients perception towards hospital facility score

Mean S.D No

Marital statusMarried 28.15 1.79 104

Unmarried 28.35 2.17 46


From the above table it is inferred that the respondents belong to the marital status

level of unmarried have a mean of 28.35 with patient perception towards hospital facility.

Table No: 3.32(a)


T DF SIG

.571 148 1.976


significantly between Male and female. The calculated t-test value is 0.571 which is

lesser than the table value of 1.976 at 5% level of significance. Since the table value is

higher than the calculated value it is inferred that the mean patient perception towards

hospital facility has no significant difference between the Married and Unmarried. Hence

the hypothesis is accepted.

Table Showing Relationship between type of patient and patient perception towards

hospital facility

Hypothesis: The Patient perception towards hospital facility has significant with the

Inpatient and Outpatient.

Table No: 3.33

Group Statistics-Type of Patient and patient perception

62


Mean S.D No.

Type of patientInpatient 28.55 2.00 77

Outpatient 27.86 1.76 73


From the above table it is inferred that the majority of respondents are outpatients

have a higher mean of 27.86 with patient perception towards hospital facility.

Table No: 3.33(a)


T DF SIG

2.212 148 1.976


significantly between Inpatient and Outpatient. The calculated t-test value is 2.212 which

is higher than the table value of 1.976 at 5%level of significance. Since the calculated

value is higher than the table value it is inferred that the mean patient perception towards

hospital facility has significant with the Inpatient and Outpatient. Hence the hypothesis is

rejected.

Table Showing Relationship between area of residence and patient perception

towards hospital Facility

Hypothesis: The Patient perception towards hospital facility has no significant difference

between the Rural and Urban.

Table No: 3.34

63

Group Statistics-Area of residence and patient perception


Mean S.D No.

Area of Residence

Rural 28.16 2.07 79

Urban 28.27 1.74 71


From the above table it is inferred that the majority of respondents belong to

urban areas has a mean of 28.27 with patient perception towards hospital facility.

Table No: 3.34(a)


T DF SIG

.328 148 1.976


significantly between Rural and Urban. The calculated t-test value is 0.328 which is

lesser than the table value of 1.976 at 5%level of significance. Since the table value is

higher than the calculated value it is inferred that the mean patient perception towards

hospital facility has no significant difference between the Rural and Urban. Hence the


Table Showing Relationship between Gender and Satisfaction level regarding the

hospital personnel

Hypothesis: The Satisfaction level towards hospital person has no significant difference

between the Male and Female.

Table No: 3.35

64

Group Statistics-Gender and Level of satisfaction

Satisfaction Level regarding the Hospital Persons Score

Mean S.D No.

Gender

Male 32.47 2.67 72

Female 32.76 2.76 78



category has a higher mean of 32.76 with satisfaction level regarding the hospital

persons.

Table No: 3.35(a)


T DF SIG

.640 148 1.976


significantly between Male and Female. The calculated t-test value is 0.640 which is


higher than the calculated value it is inferred that the mean level of satisfaction regarding

the hospital persons has no significant difference between the Male and Female. Hence


Table Showing Relationship between Marital Status and Satisfaction level regarding

the hospital personnel

Hypothesis: The Satisfaction level regarding the hospital persons has no significant

difference between the Married and Unmarried.

Table No: 3.36

Group Statistics-Marital status and Level of satisfaction

65


Mean S.D No.


Unmarried 32.80 2.57 46



of unmarried have a mean of 32.80 with satisfaction level regarding the hospital persons.

Table No: 3.36(a)


T DF SIG

.553 148 1.976


significantly between married and unmarried. The calculated t-test value is0.553 which is



the hospital persons has no significant difference between the Married and Unmarried.


Table Showing Relationship between Type of Patient and Satisfaction level

regarding the hospital personnel


difference between the Inpatient and Outpatient

Table No: 3.37

Group Statistics-Type of Patient and Level of satisfaction

66


Mean S.D No.

Type of patient

Inpatient 32.64 2.57 77



From the above table it is inferred that the majority of respondents are inpatient

have a higher mean of 32.64 with satisfaction level regarding the hospital persons.

Table No: 3.37(a)


T DF SIG

.076 148 1.976


significantly between Inpatient and Outpatient. The calculated t-test value is 0.076which

is lesser than the table value of 1.976 at 5%level of significance. Since the table value is


the hospital persons has no significant difference between the Inpatient and Outpatient.


Table Showing Relationship between Area of Residence and Satisfaction level

regarding the Hospital personnel


difference between the Rural and Urban.

Table No: 3.38

Group statistics: Area of Residence and Level of satisfaction

67


Mean S.D No.

Area of ResidenceRural 32.61 2.94 79

Urban 32.63 2.45 71



urban areas has a higher mean of 32.63 with satisfaction level regarding the hospital

persons.

Table No: 3.38(a)


T DF SIG

.059 148 1.976





the hospital persons has no significant difference between the Rural and Urban. Hence


Table Showing Relationship between Gender and opinion about cost of treatment


the Male and Female.

Table No: 3.39

68

Group Statistics-Gender and opinion about cost of treatment

Opinion About Cost Of Treatment Score

Mean S.D No.

GenderMale 14.21 3.38 72

Female 13.99 3.18 78



category has a higher mean of 14.21 with opinion about cost of treatment.

Table No: 3.39(a)


T DF SIG

.413 148 1.976




higher than the calculated value it is inferred that the mean opinion about cost of

treatment has no significant difference between Male and Female. Hence the hypothesis

is accepted.

Table Showing Relationship between Marital Status and opinion about cost of

treatment


the Married and Unmarried.

69

Table No: 3.40

Group Statistics-Marital Status and opinion about cost of treatment


Mean S.D No.


Unmarried 14.13 3.46 46



of unmarried have a mean of 14.13 with opinion about cost of treatment.

Table No: 3.40(a)


T DF SIG

.092 148 1.976


significantly between married and unmarried. The calculated t-test value is 0.092 which

is lesser than the table value of 1.976 at 5% level of significance. Since the table value is


treatment has no significant difference between the Married and Unmarried. Hence the


Table Showing Relationship between Type of Patient and opinion about cost of

treatment

Hypothesis: The opinion about cost of treatment has significant with the Inpatient and

Outpatient.

70

Table No: 3.41

Group statistics: Type of Patient and opinion about cost of treatment

opinion about cost of treatment score

Mean S.D No.

Type of patient Inpatient 15.95 2.32 77



From the above table it is inferred that the majority of respondents are inpatients

have a higher mean of 15.95 with opinion about cost of treatment.

Table No: 3.41(a)


T DF SIG

8.765 148 2.609



is higher than the table value of 2.609 at 1% level of significance. Since the calculated

value is higher than the table value it is inferred that the mean opinion about cost of

treatment has significant with the Inpatient and Outpatient. Hence the hypothesis is

rejected.

Table Showing Relationship between Area of residence and opinion about cost of

treatment

Hypothesis: The opinion about cost of treatment scores has no significant difference


71

Table No: 3.42

Group statistics: Area of residence and opinion about cost of treatment

Source:

Computed

From the above table it is inferred that the majority of respondents belong

to rural areas has a higher mean of 14.13 with opinion about cost of treatment.

Table No: 3.42(a)


T DF SIG

.131 148 1.976





treatment has no significant difference between the Rural and Urban. Hence the


Table Showing Relationship between Gender and Satisfaction level of General

services

Hypothesis: The Satisfaction level of general services has no significant difference

between the Male and Female.

72


Mean S.D No.

Area of ResidenceRural 14.13 3.47 79

Urban 14.06 3.06 71

Total 14.09 3.27 150

Table No: 3.43

Group Statistics- Gender and Satisfaction level of General services

Satisfaction level of general services score

Mean S.D No.

Gender

Male 20.38 2.14 72

Female 20.18 1.67 78



category has a higher mean of 20.38 with satisfaction level of general services.

Table No: 3.43(a)


T DF SIG

.627 148 1.976




higher than the calculated value it is inferred that the mean satisfaction level of general

services has no significant difference between Male and Female. Hence the hypothesis is

accepted.

Table Showing Relationship between Marital Status and Satisfaction level of

General services

Hypothesis: “The Satisfaction level of general services has no significant difference

between the Married and Unmarried.

73

Table No: 3.44

Group statistics: Marital Status and Satisfaction level of General services

Satisfaction Level of General Services Score

Mean S.D No.


Unmarried 20.41 1.71 46



of unmarried have a mean of 20.41 with satisfaction level of general services.

Table No: 3.44(a)


T DF SIG

.597 148 1.976


significantly between married and unmarried. The calculated t-test value is 0.597 which



services has no significant difference between Married and Unmarried. Hence the


Table Showing Relationship between Type of Patient and Satisfaction level of

General services

Hypothesis: The Satisfaction level of general services has no significant difference

between the Inpatient and Outpatient.

74

Table No: 3.45

Group statistics: Type of Patient and Satisfaction level of General services


Mean S.D No.

Type of patient

Inpatient 20.22 1.95 77



From the above table it is inferred that the majority of respondents are outpatients

have a higher mean of 20.33 with satisfaction level of general services.

Table No: 3.45(a)


T DF SIG

.346 148 1.976




higher than the table value it is inferred that the mean satisfaction level of general

services has no significant difference between the Inpatient and Outpatient. Hence the


Table Showing Relationship between Area of Residence and Satisfaction level of

General services

Hypothesis: “The Satisfaction level of general services has no significant difference


75

Table No: 3.46

Group statistics-Area of Residence and Satisfaction level of General services


Mean S.D No.

Area of Residence

Rural 20.22 2.02 79

Urban 20.34 1.78 71



urban areas has a higher mean of 20.34 with satisfaction level of general services.

Table No: 3.46(a)


T DF SIG.

.394 148 1.976





services has no significant difference between the Rural and Urban. Hence the hypothesis

is accepted.

CORRELATION

Correlation was applied to find the degree of relationship between score and

variables. The correlation was also applied to find whether there is a positive or negative

relationship between the variables.

Table No: 3.47

76

Table showing relationship between the patient perception towards hospital,

satisfaction level towards hospital persons, opinion about cost of treatment,

satisfaction level of general services.

patients perception

towards hospital

score

satisfaction level towards

hospital persons score

opinion about cost

of treatment score

satisfaction level of general services

score

patients perception towards hospital score

Pearson Correlation .311(**) .064 .150

satisfaction level towards hospital persons score

Pearson Correlation .062 .295(**)

opinion about cost of treatment score

Pearson Correlation -.029

satisfaction level of general services score

Pearson Correlation

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level

Source: Computed

Correlation to find the degree of relationship between the variables.

From the table it is a found that there is a positive correlation between patients

perception towards hospital and satisfaction level towards hospital persons (0.311), there

is also positive relationship between satisfaction level towards hospital persons and

satisfaction level of general services (0.295).

From the table it is a found that there is a negative correlation between opinion

about cost of treatment and satisfaction level of general services (0.029),this indicates

that respondents who have less opinion about cost of treatment will have high opinion

regarding the satisfaction level of general services.

KENDALL’S COEFFICIENT OF CONCORDANCE

Kendall’s Co-Efficient of Concordance has been applied to find out whether

the respondents have assigned similar ranks in expressing their opinion.

Table No: 3.48

77

HYPOTHESIS: “The mean rank of the respondents regarding the influence to select the

hospital.

Factors Mean Rank

Excellent service 2.97

Availability of expert doctors 2.55

Familiarity 2.92

Moderate payment 3.84

Location 2.72Source: Computed

Lower mean rank of 2.55 is given to availability of expert doctors, which shows

that availability of expert doctors is considered as the first choice, 2.72mean rank is given

to location, which shows that location is considered as the second choice, 2.92mean rank

is given to familiarity, which shows that familiarity is considered as the third choice,

2.97mean rank is given to excellent service, which shows that excellent service is

considered as the fourth choice and 3.84 mean rank is given to moderate payment, which

shows that moderate brand is considered as the fifth choice.

Table No: 3.48(a)

Kendall's W .100

Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) was used to find the extent of similarity

among then respondents in assigning ranks to the given items (W) varies between 0&1,

higher the value of (W) more will be the similarity among the respondents in assigning

the ranks. The Kendall’s (W) calculated for the given item (0.100) which shows that there

is less similarity among the respondent in assigning the rank.

CHAPTER-IV

FINDINGS, SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

FINDINGS

78

Percentage Analysis

Majority of the respondents are in the category of 31-40 years.

Majority of the respondents are married.

Majority of the respondents are Postgraduates.

Majority of the respondents are Business People.

Majority of the respondents are Annual income of Rs.100000 to Rs.200000.

Majority of the respondents are Inpatient.

Majority of the respondents are urban area.

Majority of the respondents are Reference by doctors.

Majority of the respondents recommend their hospital to others.

Hospital Facility

Majority of the respondents 66.0% of the respondents say that the infrastructure

facilities provided by the hospital is excellence.

Majority of the respondents 78.7% of the respondents say that the space and

seating in the lobby facilities provided by the hospital is good.

Majority of the respondents 48.0% of the respondents say that the Pharmacy

facilities provided by the hospital is good.

Majority of the respondents 60% of the respondents say that Ambulance facilities

provided by the hospital is good.

Majority of the respondents 57.3% of the respondents say that the Catering

facilities provided by the hospital is good.

Majority of the respondents 60% of the respondents say that the Toilet facilities

provided by the hospital is good.

Cost of treatment (Inpatient)

Majority of the respondents 64.7% of the respondents say that the consultation

fees charged by the hospital is reasonable.

79

Majority of the respondents 51.3%of the respondents say that the Investigation

charged by the hospital is reasonable.

Majority of the respondents 47.5% of the respondents say that the Amount

charged for food facilities in the hospital is reasonable.

Majority of the respondents 53.75 of the respondents say that the Room rent

charges and other services charges by the hospital is reasonable.

Majority of the respondents 46.7%of the respondents say that the Medicine

charged by the medical shop in a hospital is reasonable.

Majority of the respondents 47.3%of the respondents say that the cost of the item

sold in the canteen in a hospital is reasonable.

Cost of treatment (outpatient)

Majority of the respondents 64.7% of the respondents say that the consultation

fees charged by the hospital is reasonable.

Majority of the respondents 51.3%of the respondents say that the Investigation

charged by the hospital is reasonable.

Majority of the respondents 46.7%of the respondents say that the Medicine

charged by the medical shop in a hospital is reasonable.

Majority of the respondents 47.3%of the respondents say that the cost of the item

sold in the canteen in a hospital is reasonable.

Satisfaction Level of General Services

Majority of the respondents 30% of the respondents say that services of

employees in the hospital is good.

Majority of the respondents 68% of the respondents say that personal touch with

patients in the hospital is good.

Majority of the respondents 37.3% of the respondents say that prevention of error

in the hospital is good.

Majority of the respondents 62.0% of the respondents say that safety provision in

the hospital is good.

80

Majority of the respondents 48.7%of the respondents say that medical record

department in the hospital is good.

ANOVA

ANOVA reveals that there was no significant difference between the age,

educational qualification, occupation, annual income of the respondents and their

satisfaction level for the personnel services, patient perception towards hospital,

opinion about cost of treatment, and satisfaction level of general services availed

as calculated value of ANOVA. Hence the hypothesis is accepted.

There is opinion about cost of treatment was significant with the educational

qualification groups. Hence the hypothesis is rejected.

t-test

t-test reveals that there was no significant difference between the gender , marital

status, area of residence, type of patient of the respondents their satisfaction level

for personnel services, patient perception towards hospital, opinion about cost of

treatment, and satisfaction level of general services as calculated value of t-test.


There is opinion about cost of treatment was significant with the Inpatient and

Outpatient. Hence the hypothesis is rejected.

Correlation

There is a positive correlation between patients perception towards hospital and

satisfaction level towards hospital persons score of (0.311), The satisfaction level

towards hospital persons and satisfaction level of general services (0.295).

There is a negative correlation between opinion about cost of treatment and

satisfaction level of general services (0.029).

Kendall’s coefficient of concordance

81

Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) was used to find the extent of similarity

among then respondents in assigning ranks to the given items Kendall’s(W)varies

between 0&1, higher the value of (W) more will be the similarity among the

respondents in assigning the ranks. The Kendall’s (W) calculated for the given

item (0.100) which shows that there is less similarity among the respondents in

assigning the rank.

82

SUGGESTIONS

The hospital should increase the Square feet area of the Parking Loard.

Customer relation management should work more efficiently.

Visitor’s room should be provided for the patient’s relative.

The quality of the food that is provided in the canteen can be improved by pre-

checking the quality before serving and also the stock available should be

reported as and when in order to issue tokens without any problem.

Sales promotion activities can be improved.

Camp facilities may be arranged in schools, public places, and old age homes.

CONCLUSION

“Health is wealth” is gaining more importance in recent years. Hospitals are

those are accessible for the people to get rid of disease. Patient satisfaction is an

increasing important issue both in evaluation and shaping of health care, it should be

carried out routinely in all aspects of health care to improve the quality of health services.

Patient attending each hospital are responsible for spreading the good image of the

hospital and therefore satisfaction of patients attending the hospital is equally important

for hospital management. The study concluded that the Swiss eye care Hospital can

organize seminars and conferences from time to time for sharing information which

indeed a kind of publicity and the hospital can also conduct free medical camp in rural

areas as a part of social responsibility which increases the reputation of the organization.

83

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Kothari.C.R. – “Research Methodology, Methods & Techniques Wishwa

Prakashan New Delhi 2nd Edition, page no 76, 77, 282, 283

Fisher. D. Cynthia, Schoenfeldt F.Lyle, Shaw. B. James “H.R.manale 2nd Edition,

page no .512 to 527

Anju gupta, Operations Research, Excel books, 1st Edition 1998, page no 96-99

Marketing for Hospitality. Philip Kotler, John Bowen, & James Makens.

Ravi Shanker, Service marketing, The Indian perspective, Excel book, First

edition, 2002.

Journals &Magazines

Brouchers of Swiss Eye Hospital.

The ICFAI Journal of Service Marketing, Suchitra Jampani.

Indian Journal of Marketing. Dr. G Ganesan Dr. K. Chandra Sekar Rao.

Websites

www.hospital.com

www.healthline.com

www.healthfinder.com

www.Swiss eye.in

84

http://www.healthfinder.com/

http://www.hospital.com/

swiss eye care.docx

Documents